Howie has the data I believe.
_______________________________
Philippe Beaudette
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone, please understand any misspellings or errors.
----- Reply message -----
From: "Oliver Keyes" <scire.facias(a)gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2011 5:45 pm
Subject: [Gendergap] Example of Typical Response from Some Women
To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
As said, we need a proper survey on the matter. Surveys are always going to
be beset with statistical errors, but this seems a fairly vital thing. I
think I mentioned before that, last year, the WMF did a general survey of
people who had left Wikipedia and why. I think a good first step would be
finding out where that data is and, if it included gender in the filled-out
forms, comparing male and female reasons for leaving. If it did not, take
the general statistical model and apply it again, including a gender entry,
and compare the results.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Sandra ordonez
<sandratordonez(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> I think it does affect women more, but this is just my personal
> observation. And I should have put "typical response I ve gotten from
> women." This is why i love wikipedia - really helps you be very aware of
> your language. Thanks Oliver!!
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Oliver Keyes <scire.facias(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Yah, that's what I meant; newbie ignorance isn't a problem. Our attitude
>> to newbie ignorance is the problem :P. This is something I think all new
>> editors are at risk of (being shouted at and falling off the grid as a
>> result) - I'm not sure why it would affect women more, or if it does at all.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Dominic <dmcdevit(a)cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Newbie ignorance is never a problem. All newbies are, by nature,
>>> ignorant of our policies and practices. We all started out that way. And the
>>> great thing about wikis is that that is okay and you can still contribute.
>>> If anything, the problem is intolerance of newbies. (That may be what you
>>> really meant anyway, but I think it is better to turn that phrase "newbie
>>> ignorance" around.)
>>>
>>> Dominic
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/11/11 5:49 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
>>>
>>> "Typical response from some women" should be "a response from a woman".
>>> So the problem, then, is newbie ignorance about our rules and policies?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Sandra ordonez <
>>> sandratordonez(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just wanted to share. Yesterday I put something on my facebook re:
>>>> gender gap. My friend from high school, who totally would be a woman who
>>>> would enjoy editing an encyclopedia, posted the following:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Whenever I edit it usually gets taken down but some OCD nerd, that
>>>> probably wants no one touching "their" site so I stopped bothering."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sandra Ordonez
> Web Astronaut
>
> "Helping you rock out in the virtual world."
>
> *www.collaborativenation.com*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
Hey folks,
I know there have been a couple of threads discussing the idea of an
outreach-to-women Edit Wikipedia Day/Week/Month.
I'm curious to know if we all want to take a crack at it?
We've been kicking it around at the Wikimedia Foundation, and although
we're daunted by the timeline, we'd be willing to give it a shot. I
feel like there's really good momentum building around this issue
right now, and we should take advantage of it.
I'm imagining something a bit like the 10th anniversary: a wiki page
where we could publish a manifesto of some kind describing the
project, and people could post their events/activities supporting it.
I'm imagining events/activities could range from "I pledge to teach my
sister how to edit Wikipedia on March 8," to "I will persuade at least
six of my female colleagues to try editing, by posting to all my
academic listservs," to "the French chapter will hold an edit-a-thon
at the public library in Paris, and will specifically aim to recruit
women to turn up, every weekend in March." You know what I mean: that
kind of thing.
Do we want to do this? If so, let's get a page started :-)
Thanks,
Sue
Sue Gardner.
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
After editing many years at Wikipedia, I think the most problematic
aspect of the system is that all user guidelines are on behavior. If you
have a problem editor who stays within the rules, they can and will keep
going and going on content issues till they win. And unless they break
some behavior rule, this can go on forever, especially in controversial
areas. What I want to say here is that man generally are far more likely
to keep pushinga dn pushing till they have their way content wise.
If we are serious about fixing this issue, the focus needs to shift from
behavior to content. I am not going to hit the hottest button of all,
but we need a way to reign in content warriors by providing a way to
resolve content disputes without having to wait till one of the parties
violates a behavioral policy. By the time they start violating those,
most women have left already.
Do others share this observation?
Kim
--
http://www.kimvdlinde.com
First, Sandy,
I totally agree with you - the few men who
use negative locker room talk about women have
caused the downfall of many women in management.
The majority of men don't make statements like this,
but they do let them be discussed.
So good guys, stop being a part of the problem. Tell the
insecure guys to shut up, that nobody wants to hear that
stuff anymore.
Second, Miguel,
Thank you for pointing out that the gender gap
exists all over the world.
You propose the Wikipedia site itself might be a problem,
because women don't want to work with it because
it isn't WYSIWYG. <*sigh*>
The reasons being:
1. "men are a bit more obsessive in their work than women"
2. "maybe it's the look of the site, not attractive enough"
3. "women tend to focus their attention on people, instead of things, as men
do"
#1 & #3 have been stated about women and work for over a century.
#2 --> Has a woman *actually* told you that she won't post to
Wikipedia because she finds the interface too difficult?
You're proposing that women don't want to post as experts
because they don't want to be an expert in using a complex interface.
Because of a deficiency with women, they don't want to become
experts with a system that would allow them to post their
expert opinion.
I sense a catch-22 argument here.
Reworking the Wikipedia interface is not really addressing the problem.
Another reason why "women don't want to ____ because ______"
We should have a Wiki page on these bizarre reasons.
If we put them in a long list it might not help anyone, but
it might be humorous. We could just refer to reason #1054
or #782 or #11659 with links to the Wiki page. Good for
a laugh. Women could post any new funnies, like "women
aren't as obsessive about their work as men are".
This might become the most popular set of pages on Wikipedia.
Of course, it would probably attract trolls. So let's not.
To have a serious response to the problem, let's have a
'Women Post to Wiki' month, and have a banner
about it on every Wiki page during the month. It validates that
the world community accepts women as experts, and invites
women to post who may have thought about it before, but didn't.
I love that Google has different logos every day. Wiki
can have a different logo for that month.
- Susan Spencer Conklin
I very much responded to Patricia's list of the kinds of articles that could become part of the gendergap initiative. (For example: existing articles on Maria Curie, etc.; articles with more biographies of women; articles on women's rights; articles on the role of women in indigenous religions (Pachamama, etc) or concepts (motherland, matria, etc)).
I would like to expand that by pointing out that within existing articles, there is need for gender balance too. For instance, there is a whole school of woman-based economics that appears nowhere in the article on economics. Nor is that main entry linked to "gift economy," where there are major women theorists. I go to that entry and am surprised that not a single woman is mentioned (Riane Eisler's "Real Wealth of Nations" should be there). Finally I look up "motherwork," one of the primary terms for women's economic contributions, and I find no entry and am referred to "motherwort."
I am not starting my day off well with finding "motherwort" has an entry, and "motherwork" does not.
For real equity, we must acknowledge women's contributions in fields where men predominate. Cheers Patricia M
FYI on a discussion in Wikimedia India mailing list.
Regards
Tinu Cherian
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Pradeep Mohandas <pradeep.mohandas(a)gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:35 PM
Subject: [Wikimediaindia-l] Workshop for Women in Wikipedia (WWW) idea
To: "Discussion list on Indian language projects of Wikimedia." <
wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
hi,
Tinu Cherian and Moksh Juneja were discussing this on twitter. Tinu
suggested that there be held a Workshop for Women in Wikipedia as a response
to the news article/study on the point about percentage of women who
participate in Wikipedia.
These are a few blog and newspaper articles you can read for background
which shows that fewer than 15% of the editors on Wikipedia are women.
1. Wikimedia Blog -
http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2011/02/01/wikipedias-gender-gap/
2. New York Times article -
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?bl - which
triggered the debate.
3. Sue Gardner, among the people covered in the NY Times article, posted a
separate blog post -
http://suegardner.org/2011/01/31/new-york-times-prompts-a-flurry-of-coverag…
which writes about the coverage.
A mailing list has now been created called Gender Gap as a "a space where
Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians can share research and information and
tactics for making Wikipedia more attractive to women editors." This mailing
list can be found here - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/
Tinu's suggested workshop idea has led to Moksh urging him to take it up
seriously and he's offered to help in the Mumbai end of things. I suggested
that the first such event under that or other name could be held on March 8,
2011 (the centenary year of International Women's Day). The workshop is seen
as a space to help and mentor passionate women editors on Wikipedia who need
help. I think we do this anyway but the very bad gender skew means we have
to do it more often.
This has just been posted as a starting point for conversations. Ideas,
suggestions etc are all welcome.
warm regards,
Pradeep Mohandas
user:prad2609
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Hello
Just a quick word to say that I really appreciated your (2) emails about
Solutions. Whilst I agree that issues you raise are not directly related
to the "gendergap", I do not think we should aim necessarily in finding
solutions to address the women issue, but rather aim at identifying what
would facilitate participation and help where we can.
Do not get boggued down by rather critical comments or limited comments
from members of this list. What you suggest could have significant
social impacts within our community, and we should always be careful to
avoid breaking what basically works. It is normal that people be
hesitant and it will take a long time and many many many discussions
before some of your suggestions are implemented and go live. But if it
goes in the right direction, there is no hurry. We have been there for
already 10 years and we plan to be there for many years to come. There
is nothing urgent. Time is the essence :)
Anthere
On 2/9/11 8:17 PM, Brandon Harris wrote:
> As promised, here is a mail in which I talk about possible directions.
> A lot of this has to do with the discussion system that is used by
> Wikipedia.
>
> It is abundantly clear that Talk pages are a plague upon all the
> houses. They are intensely difficult to use and understand. They are
> *incredibly* difficult for new users to understand and navigate for many
> reasons (which I can elaborate on, but I'll assume we all know what they
> are).
>
> So let's get rid of them. Let's move to a modern discussion system
> (which is the promise of LiquidThreads) - one that users are likely to
> be more familiar with, one that is easier to use, and one that
> encourages several principles.
>
>
>
> * Identity Emphasis
>
> It is a known problem that Talk pages do not engender (hah!) identity.
> In fact, the only notification that a comment exists from a different
> user is an indent and (possibly) a signature. To a new user, however,
> that doesn't help much. In fact, we've seen time and time again that
> newbies have difficulty distinguishing "that one guy was a jerk to me"
> versus "Wikipedia was a jerk to me."
>
> I should be clear that I'm not talking about "real" identification
> (e.g., "Brandon Harris" vs. "Jorm") but rather the ability for a new
> user to easily connect all of Jorm's comments together.
>
> There are several small things that we can do to make this better which
> will have a larger benefit than their sum.
>
> First, research has shown that people are far less likely to provide
> hostile or negative responses *if they believe they are talking to
> another person* and *if they do not feel anonymous*.
>
> Accordingly, attaching a sense of identity to both the poster and the
> replier can help to alleviate this. One common way to do this is the
> inclusion of avatars to discussion posts.
>
> By encouraging communication between individuals we will go a long way
> towards creating a social structure that can build grass-roots style.
>
> * Positive Feedback Systems
>
> As a culture, Wikipedia has developed several mechanisms to indicate
> displeasure with an individual's activities. However, we have next to no
> methods for telling someone that they have done a good job, or "thanks
> for the comment". Sure, we have barnstars, but they are a non-standard
> feedback mechanism and likely to be confusing to new users.
>
> A simple "thanks" button, or "this was helpful" mechanism can go a long
> way towards solving for that. Promoting helpfulness will make being
> helpful a desirable trait and will go a long way towards alleviating
> "newbie bite."
>
> * Newbie Protection Mechanisms
>
> A sad truth is that there are many people on Wikipedia who are jerks or
> trolls. Experienced users know to avoid such people but new users are
> thrown into the gladatorial arena without protection.
>
> A system where low-value contributors (trolls) can be flagged or
> "downvoted" can go a long way towards addressing this. In
> LiquidThreads, unhelpful comments could be automatically "collapsed" and
> de-emphasized.
>
> That leads me to. . .
>
> * Reputation Systems
>
> A reputation system is a form of soft "social currency." Helpful
> individuals (those with high "helpful" marks) are called out and those
> with low-value are de-emphasized. New users would be able to recognize
> individuals that the community has determined to be high-value. This
> helps to encourage trust, which promotes community health and vibrancy.
>
> I have a lot of other things I've been looking at but I think this is a
> sufficient launch point for now.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hello, people. This post is about coexistence of users in general with different points of view, but a solution for this kind of issues could, in my opinion, improve the atmosphere in Wikipedia, which some people think it's one of the causes of the gender gap problem.
Would it be possible to implement some kind of tool to call/convene (or prevent :)) people around certain topic (for example, a "hot" flag) when there's a tough discussion? Sometimes one user feels territorial with what he/(she) thinks/*feels* it's the only alternative, and another user (not so experienced) ends
up in a "duel" with all reasons refused. The flag system could vary on whether it's based on the participation or on certain key words used in the conversation (block, administrators' noticeboard, etc.)
With a wider approach, there's another issue: Wikipedia is
based on consensus. OK, but there are no specific rules for consensus. That means that, sometimes, you see that 10 users can do nothing against one or two "experienced" users (maybe administrators), because those 2 users state that "Wikipedia is not a democracy". OK, I agree that knowledge is surely not democratic with a narrow scope, but, in the case of Wikipedia, is that always true?
I mean, let's imagine, for example, 100 people against 3, with sources of reference presented by both sides. Could it be said
that Wikipedia is not a democracy in that situation? Who's the *judge* to determine who's right? Of course, it depends on who really are those 100 people and who really are those other 3 people, but, how can we know? Sometimes you watch the scene and understand that both points of view are feasible, or even that
the "newbies" point of view is the correct one, but, who am I to enter the discussion? All I could get is the administrators' enmity.
Sometimes the only problem is that a lot of other experienced
users (maybe administrators, too) who could have changed the balance of the discussion are not aware of what's happening in certain place, and when they notice it's too late (maybe one user retired or was blocked). Probably the avatar system could help in this, but, would it be enough?
And this leads me to a last question: is it fair to base knowledge on
brute force? I'll explain myself: sometimes there are people who are just *afraid* to express their point of view because their experience tells them that they could end up blocked, specially when they are relatively new to Wikipedia and when there are precedents of refused suggestions. And nobody wants to take part because they just don't want to get into trouble. Experienced users know how to use a provoking speech with subtleties that are not really defamatory but can excite the other part by playing with his/her sensitivity, just to obtain "reasons" (nettiquete faults) to refuse the real reasons given. In these cases, pure reasons are deliberately replaced by the capacity to stay calm, and that's not fair.
I've also been thinking about a word to be used instead of "discussion". "Argument"? "Reason"? I particularly like the second one :)
Regards
Miguel Ángel
And of all the emails sent recently on this list, this is probably my
favorite :) Thank you to Delphine for asking the question. Thank you to
Sandy to give it a try to answer.
Some emails on this list have been giving good points and good
suggestions, but I do not think venting the various frustrations we have
met on Wikipedia or in our professional life or in our personal life is
going to really make for a big change.
My view would rather be that we indeed start with asking ourselves the
question "What would women bring to Wikipedia ? Would that help us in
our big dream to get more women participation ? "
- Because if the answer is "we need more women to reach our goal of
collecting and bringing knowledge to the world", great.
- If the answer is "we need more women because equality should require
that we have a 50%-50% men-women", then we fail. Making sure women are
respected, listened to, involved, blablabla, is great. But that's not
what we are collectively looking for. Our goal is not gender equality,
right ?
Second, once we have identified the reason for more participation (if we
have agreed it would be helpful), then we should identify what would be
the indicators for success. Because again, forgive me for being bold...
but if we set up an official goal of say-25% participation of women...
then it means that what we are currently doing is working toward a goal
of more "men-women equality". I personally do not care for this goal. I
am here on Wikipedia to allow every one to have access to a complete,
accurate, uptodate, neutral information. So, a goal of "more women" or a
goal of "at least 25% women contributors" makes no sense to me.
If "improve the breadth of our articles" is our goal (to make sure
lipstick and russian women biographies are properly covered), then set
up a goal with regards to "content breadth". And implement a tracking
system to follow evolution.
If "50% of women readers in north african countries" is our goal, then
set up a goal with regards to "readership stats". And implement a
tracking system to follow "readership stats".
If "getting good PR so that the press loves us and so that big
foundations give us cash" is our goal, then set up a goal with regards
to "25% women participation". And implement a tracking system to follow
women participation and buzz the results.
But as long as we do not know what our "goals" are, it is weird to
define indicators of success and weird to rely on stats that carry
little significance.
Third, when goals and indicators are set up (and perhaps different
groups will have different goals and indicators), then it will be time
to foster the best conditions so that this happens over time. Some will
choose a totally western strategy and organize "women day", "women
awards", "special projects for women". Others will choose a more
let-it-be strategy, merely avoiding the least favorable paths and
influencing to get us on favorable paths. Usually, Wikipedians strategy
is rather of the second type.
For those who understand French, I have blogged on the topic here:
http://www.anthere.org/post/2011/02/09/Wikipedia%2C-les-femmes-et-la-philos…
Anthere
On 2/8/11 2:13 PM, Sandra ordonez wrote:
> Now that I've vented, I've been thinking of Delphine's original
> question(s) regarding the why...this is what i came up with. *
>
> 1) Improve the quality of information.* Information is shaped by
> perspective, regardless of how NPOV you aim to be, and perspective is
> shaped by experience. When you experience the world in a certain
> perspective, you see things that others don't see. A Chinese immigrant
> in the United States may notice things that a American born may not
> see, just like it is very likely that a female may notice things their
> male counterparts don't see.
> *
> 2) Open doors to more groups*.The inclusion of women might have a
> domino affect, and open doors for other groups, particularly those
> that are traditionally dis-empowered, such as people of color in the
> United States. (You can include whatever other group you want here..I
> can only speak to the US).
> *
> 3) Improved processes and systems.* Collaboration is improved by
> diversity - everyone in this group knows this. More female
> participation may result in better collaborative brainstorming and
> problem solvin.
>
> *4) Better organization.* Studies reveal that women tend to be great
> multi-taskers. IMHO, women are great multitaskers because they also
> plan their world to be more "efficient" for multitasking. I can
> totally see a group of women helping improve the organization of
> Wikipedia's rules, background knowledge, presentation, etc.
>
> *5) Stronger community. *Reports are also showing that more women than
> men are on social media. This is because women tend to focus on
> creating community. A larger, more sophisticated Wikipedian community
> is so powerful, I'm not even sure how to describe its potential in
> words. However, it would have the ability to help the projects but
> bring change worldwide.
>
> *
> 6) Better image. *Organizations that are ethical are usually favored
> and respected by society, which increase's an org's success. I am not
> talking "left vs right," and this is not a philosophical question, it
> is a public relations one. Talk to any PR practioner and they can
> share why this works, and examples of organizations taking this PR
> strategy. And, at a minimum, I can guarantee it will increase how
> many women worldwide see the project, which btw are 50% of the world's
> population.
>
> *7) Better parties and possibly more Wikilove!* As corny as it sounds,
> I am quite positive that more women will improve the festivities in
> any wiki get together, and possibly result in more wikilove :) lolol
> Why not!! What a perfect place to meet someone that shares your
> interest, and better parties are usually always welcomed.
>
> *8) A better world society.* Wikipedia has this ability to affect the
> world and start revolutions in what seems to be very silent but
> effective ways. I really believe that the inclusion of women will have
> amazing revolutionary affects on the world, and make it better.
> Channeling Jeff Bridges, "information is really power, man." And maybe
> we have come to take for granted that the world is informed/educated
> through wikipedia on a daily basis. This has an effect.
>
> *9) Its the right thing to do.* Wikipedia has always gone against the
> grain, even though at times it ruffled society's feathers b/c
> transparency in knowledge sharing is more important than the agenda of
> any group. Its part of the free culture movement, dedicated to
> empowering people worldwide, and has done much in that area. Why
> wouldn't it come together now to improve on this systematic problem
> that affects not only the project, but humans at large.
> *
> 10) Who else is going to do it? *No one has the ability to look and
> tackle this complex issue like Wikipedian community. No other
> community has the strength in numbers, intellect, and structure to
> address an issue like this. I guarantee that other groups will embrace
> any solutions the community finds, b/c its not Wikipedia is not only a
> pioneer, but its a "best-in-breed" virtual project that comes up with
> "best-in-breed" solutions.
>
>
>
> --
> Sandra Ordonez
> Web Astronaut
>
> "Helping you rock out in the virtual world."
>
> *www.collaborativenation.com <http://www.collaborativenation.com>*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
